Tag >> Patents
Posted by: Raja Selvam in Patents, India on
Sep 22, 2008
A huge number of scientific inventions have been patented in India in the last financial year. This is almost twice as many as last year. The controller general of patents’ office granted a total 15,261 patents in 2007-08 as against 7,539 granted in 2006-07.
This total includes 977 pharmaceutical product patents allotted in the sector in 2008.Patenting of Pharma products was allowed following the amendment in the Pharma Act in 2005.The general trend in patenting inventions has been on an increase. The controller general of patents has granted around 6,000 patents in the first quarter of the current year, said senior official in the ministry of commerce. Most of these inventions are of foreign origin. This does not indicate a surge in the number of local patented inventions. The total
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in Trademarks, trademark, Trade Marks, Trade Mark, Reyes Fenig, Patents, patent, Mexico, intellectual property, injunction, infringement, Application on
Jul 30, 2008
The marking of products or services that use industrial property rights (such as patents or registered trademarks), so third parties may be aware of the existence of such intangible assets, provides the right holders with certain benefits. The marking is not an actual obligation, given that failure to mark a product is not illegal by itself nor harms any third party's rights. Marking a product with the indication of an industrial property right may prevent or discourage third parties from infringing the intellectual property right associated to a product or service. If, in spite of the marking, a third party infringes the patent or trademark right, the measures available for the right holder are also stronger. There are certain rules about the marking of products provided in the Mexican
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry. The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
Posted by: Ophir Tal in Patents, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
As cleantech develops as an industry, so do cleantech related patents. The Cleantech Group at Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C, publishes a quarterly growth index of patents in the field of clean energy. Patents in the field are primarily related to fuel cells and secondarily to wind, sold and hybrid electrical energy in a similar weight, the former are the only field characterized by a continuous growth in patent numbers. Overall the study includes over 200 US patents per quarter which is quite small. It is important to keep in mind that the current state of the cleantech field may better mirrored by the numbers of patent applications, however these are not published till 18 months after filing, and prosecution may take at least a time period that is similar in duration. The index
[Originally published at Russian Patents Blog ] Last week we simultaneously (the same day) received similar inquires from two separate people - one came from the US and another from Spain. These inquires brought my attention to the fact that we forgot to mention this kind of service at our site - gotta fix it, but meanwhile I decided to put up a short post on this matter.
So, the inquiries were like these:
I wish to enter my PCT patent with your firm on Russia. I have 2 PCT patents. You can give nformation (prices at reasonable cost and others) about your office ,so I can enter my PCT nto Russia with your Firm.
and 2nd one:
I need to do a PCT national stage filing in your country by July 27, 2008 (the 31 month priority date), for application PCT/US2006/062***. If this is something you can do
Dear all, This my first post here, in relat ip community. I would like to introduce you a little tool for a patent and any other information searchers. IPEstonia Toolbar - searching tool for patents, intellectual property and any other information! IPEstonia Toolbar should help you in conducting intellectual property searches to get intellectual property information and keep in touch with intellectual property information. Or, at least, I hope so. IP Information comprises technical information, legal information and economic (marketing, competitors, etc) information. The purpose of IPE Toolbar is to be helping tool for IP attorneys, agents, assistants; for inventors, scientists, product developers; in technology, competitor, market analysis; etc. To show you more detailed the content of
The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 ("the AIPA") authorizes the extension of the term of a U.S. patent when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office USPTO fails to take certain actions within specified timeframes. Specifically, the AIPA guarantees that:
1. the USPTO will initially act on an application within 14 months of its filing date or the date on which an international application fulfilled the requirements to enter the national stage;
2. the USPTO will respond to a reply or appeal within 4 months from the date that a reply or appeal is filed;
3. the USPTO will act on the application within 4 months after a decision from the PTO Board of Appeals or Federal Court, where at least one allowable claim remains in the application;
4. that the USPTO will issue a patent within 4 months of
A webpage at wipo presents annually selected notable inventors. I would like to share with you some inventions for daily use by these notable inventors (WO/2001/033409) COMPUTER GENERATED POETRY SYSTEM by Raymond KURZWEIL; (WO 03/103559) Hybrid Human/Electric Powered Vehicle and
(WO 02/011641) Apparatus and Method for Cleaning Teeth by
Dean KAMEN; (WO 98/049868) LIGHT ENHANCED BULLHORN and (WO 03/091099) ROTORCRAFT by Elwood Norris; and finally (WO 98/028988) EDIBLE TOY FIGURES CONSTRUCTED OF CEREAL, AND METHOD and
(WO 98/038810) DISPOSABLE WIRELESS TELEPHONE AND METHOD by Randice-Lisa ALTSCHUL. I hope you have enjoyed!
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, United States, prosecution, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patent search, Patent Prosecution, patent opposition, patent, oppositions, intellectual property, consultation, blogging on
Jul 08, 2008
A possibility for opposing pending patent applications in the US is presented by Dennis Crouch in his blog Patently-O under the title "poor-man's opposition proceedings ". The US law does not allow opposing a patent application (in contrary e.g. to israeli procedures which are partly based on receiving third party's oppositions), however they do commit applicants to submit to the patent office any relevant subject matter. So, the procedure comprises sending such subject matter to the applicant, thus making him obligated to disclose it to the patent office! I like this
The Mexican Constitution states that the exclusivity rights provided therein for inventors are "temporary privileges". Without entering into the discussion about the language used in the Constitution, it is clear that one of the characteristics of the exclusivity rights on inventions is the temporality. Temporality may vary according to each specific intellectual property right. For example, the term of a registered utility model is only 10 years counted from the filing date, while the term of a patent is, as a general rule, 20 years counted from the filing date. In this post we will briefly discuss the extension patents, and specifically the only case of patents extension currently allowed by Mexican law, although probably without having that intention. The general rule is that the life of
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
